So do I now owe you 1bill isk
That was very good btw thank you
Thanks for pointing that out. If I gave some people the impression that I was a professional and licensed psychologist, I assure you that was not my intent.
I try to stick to general themes with regard to my hobby of analyzing the psychology of griefers and gankers as a group. Analyzing individuals over the internet is fraught with complications and is error prone.
As such it is my recommendation that you consult a professional.
1 Like
Nobody has that impression.
That would be a no.
Can you analyze me? I can pay a few million ISK.
I’m a young person in the US, and as such I’m on a budget because I don’t have insurance or $230,000 to go see a “professional,” so I’ll take what I can get.
You need to be honest with your therapist if you hope to make progress.
1 Like
I’ve never been to one before.
1 Like
Get Aiko to do a reading for you , sure she would discount you on the 1bil isk
1 Like
Keep your ISK. I am laser focused on two things: 1) telling the truth as best I can and 2) seeing and telling about things as they are.
I have no skills in the therapy side of things. What you get from me might be depressing enough to ruin your life and self esteem, and I will have nothing to guide you toward some light at the end of your personal tunnel.
If you feel you need analyzing, whether for bullying others or some other issue, again I must recommend a professional. It might be worth the money.
At least you are aware of your shortcomings.
I’m a big bully, I guess. I kill other players in video games about killing other players.
I thought this was a sandbox and you had options other than killing other players. If and when you get that psychoanalyst you asked for, be sure to not only mention your choice, but how you deny the other choices even exist. That will be something for him or her to work with.
Wait a second, I never said that the game is exclusively about killing other players???
I don’t know why you would think your statement should be read any other way. Its not like you even mentioned options such as industry, mining, socializing with corp mates, clearing systems of dangerous NPCs, running structures, playing markets or any of the dozens of other options you have.
We can only go by what you write and what you don’t write. You said this game was one of the ones that is “about killing other players”. You seem to be asking for a lot of special interpetation if you want to claim its about more than just that.
1 Like
Plus there are many kinds of “other players”. There are those who are threatening you, those who are not, those minding their own business, those stealing from you, those in rival corporations, friendly players, new players, old players…but you made no distinction. Its just “kill other players”. Okay. But that’s your choice and I don’t think you should blame game designers for that.
Because I think that any reasonable person doesn’t need to be explained that a game like this has more than one activity in it.
That said, conquest is obviously EVE’s central activity driver, and a good argument can be made that it’s the game’s core focus. I’m not wrong when I say that the game is about killing other players. It’s a game about killing other players in which you can perform other activities if you want to. So at this point, you’re just arguing about the meaning of the word “about” and nothing else.
Almost every single item produced by industry in the game is some kind of implement of violence. It’s not like we have the option of building furniture for our space houses. And killing NPCs is still violence. Saying that it’s okay to fire your gun at some things but not others is a bit hypocritical.
I think that a good psychologist would ask me if the entities I’m shooting are on my team or not, and would make a judgement based on that, instead of whether or not I’m shooting anything at all.
1 Like
“Players” just became “things”.
I have no idea what your opinion there is based on.
I think a good psychologist would ask a lot of questions about a lot of things. I think he or she would be far less interested in WHO you shoot (unlike a politician or military leader) and much more interested in your personal reasons, interest, and pleasure derived from shooting people in a video game. He or she would also be very interested in your frequency and dedication to achieving that goal. And as much or more than that, how much if at all, you attempt to get that person to express grief over what you have done.
That said, I feel like we are talking more about psychaiatrists now than psychologists.
Yet if I said farming was about the pleasure of growing vegetables I have no doubt you would waste no time chastizing me for not saying it was also about having food to eat for survival.
You are free to claim you centralized one aspect of this game over the others for whatever reasons you want. Readers are free to draw their own conclusions about it. I have drawn mine and I think you are wasting time, as well as digging a hole, trying to steer me away from a conclusion I have not even clearly defined.
That’s the best point of evidence that you have offered for what you said. I will add to that that non-violent forms of game play are less than compelling. This game is centered on violence and destruction, and we are all being steered toward it.
That’s why the choice of violence in this game is not very conclusive.
I suppose I could say hitting a ball with a baseball bat is too. But that seems unlikely to be indicative of a sociological issue. Paint a face on the ball though, and that changes a bit. Paint a certain person’s face and it changes more.
NPCs are only pretend people. Also they don’t offer quite as compelling game rivalry as a human player. Its hard to tell if someone chose to fight humans over NPCs because they want to grief people or they wanted more compelling game play. This point is also inconclusive.
“Things” again. And NPC is little more than a glorified paper target. But when a person is flying that target its different. And in most games it would be much like a competing in a game of one on one basketball. And in this game sometimes it is. However in this game you also might be on the court alone, and you see some guy in a suit walking by. So you bean him in the head with the ball, knocking him out, grab the ball, dribble around him, then go make a lay up and say the score is one to zero.
Well, that situation is definitely full of red flags but its common in this game. However the red flags pile up when the guy in the suit wakes up and you start digging into him, calling him a loser and telling him how he needs to learn to play basketball. And the longer someone keeps doing that the red flags eventually reach a level of true evidence.
In fact they also pile up if you keep doing for a long time completely quietly or in a dismissive way when the guy wakes up and maybe complains.
In short its the long term pattern of behavior and lack of empathy are where the hardest evidence of being a sociopathic bully lies. In real life, it can be proven faster.
this is a high effort post, I commend you for taking the time to post individual card images 
1 Like
That is a ridiculous straw man argument, and you know it.
And so is this.
If you play a game of chess, you don’t have to capture the opponent’s pieces. I know, some people think it’s all about PvP, but you can actually just choose to move your pieces around without engaging in violence. Most professional psychologists would agree that only real-life sociopaths and psychopaths are interested in actually ‘winning’ the game. It just makes me SICK to think of how many griefers play chess.
3 Likes